No, they are irrelevant. We wont miss them when they are gone, which will definitely happen in the next couple of generations. Just what are they good for?

Anonymous · 8 months ago

1

Thumbs up

4

Thumbs down

Report Abuse

1 comment

Loading ...

Add a comment

Submit

· just now

I hope royalty remains relevant in Britain. I shudder to think what the Commonwealth might do after the Queen dies if Britain refuses Prince Charles and Prince William for republicanism. I want Canada to retain an apolitical head of state so that we can have a cooling down period and an experienced adjudicator in both the Governor-General and the Monarch if our political parties start clawing each other like the American parties are doing. Prince Charles may not be the brightest twig on the Royal Family tree, but he is a good diplomat. We know he means well, and he's got no vested interest in one party.

Besides that, our history has been linked to the U.K.'s ever since John Cabot discovered Newfoundland and the Hudson's Bay Company was founded.

UK (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is a Constitutional Monarchy - it's worked for many hundreds of years - right back to Magna Carta - upon which the Constitution of the United States of America is based. Not forgetting the King James English Bible - it's purpose, to unite all Christians through the English Language.

And a whole bunch more.

Right now we having an endless debate/argument about Brexit.

The idea of Parliamentary Democracy is that people like me can vote for some to go to the House of Commons and do all the hard work while I ponce about down the pub or whatever is on the menu for the day.

And it's not called "The Mother of Parliaments" for nothing. The only people who understand democracy are the Greeks and the British here in Europe.

The monarchy is relevant as Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the preferred system of government. The working royals have official capacity; the monarch has a government position and working royals serve diplomatic duties.Aristocracy is just a link to the past, titles just being symbols of a history of service rendered by a family to the crown; aristocrats do not have automatic seats in Parliament and are mostly private people who don't have government positions unless they run for it and win a seat in Commons or are given a life peerage and chosen by committee to serve in Lords.

As far as royalty is concerned, if the majority of the people of a given nation with a monarchy feel that it functions well as a focus of a sense of history, tradition, and national identity, that's a sufficient level of "relevance". It's their business.

Most hereditary aristocrats these days are involved with their own concerns and problems, like everyone else, so the issue of "relevance" isn't applicable. Even in the UK, they don't serve in Lords unless elected by members to do so. The majority of Lords members are life peers. Aristocrats manage their estates, if they still have them, or they work in normal careers. If titles were abolished, their lives wouldn't otherwise change. They'd keep whatever property and careers they had.

No most of them are leeches scrounging off the people. It's time it was abolished. Most countries do very well without them.

Anonymous · 8 months ago

3

Thumbs up

6

Thumbs down

Report Abuse

2 comments

Loading ...

Add a comment

Submit

· just now

What I think has no bearing on what will continue in the UK - for the forseeable future. Frankly I do believe the MAJORITY of people in the UK much prefer to live with an elected Parliament and a Monarchy rather than have a POLITICIAN as Head of State. It's bad enough with what's going on right now, having a PM, without that!! Having a Head of State who doesn't get directly involved in politics, IS TOTALLY RELEVANT.